Is it time for another revolution?

[Narz]

Yes, you did. It is divorced from reality to a rather alarming degree.

Dude, if you don't want to play, don't play, don't just come & b!tch about the topic.

Clearly a revolution is needed, politicians are useless & impotent & beholded to people who don't give a crap about the common good. The Occupy movement is the closest thing I've ever seen to one in my politically very boring lifetime.

I'm not going to comment on a violent revolution though as it's probably a bad idea (to talk about it).

 

[Disgustipated]

A revolution is hardly necessary. Some campaign finance reform would be reasonable. No more having special interest groups and private donors fund campaigns. Campaigns would be funded equally through tax dollars (you'd have to create some kind of corporation tax to pay for it).

 

[Commodore]

Yes I would like to see a revolution and I have been advocating for one for years now. For those who say a revolution will bring only violence and chaos has not studied revolutions in history. Although more often than not revolutions have been violent, there are enough instances of peaceful revolution to say that it could be pulled off.

 

[Synobun]

Yes I would like to see a revolution and I have been advocating for one for years now. For those who say a revolution will bring only violence and chaos has not studied revolutions in history. Although more often than not revolutions have been violent, there are enough instances of peaceful revolution to say that it could be pulled off.

But could it really be pulled off in a system such as America's? Of course a peaceful transition is preferred, but is it realistic to consider it a possibility?

 

[Narz]

The problem as I see it is the factor of motivation. We are the most complacent generation ever.

 

[Synobun]

The problem as I see it is the factor of motivation. We are the most complacent generation ever.

This is also true. Mostly the only people who have motivation in matters relating to this are the ones controlling the situation to begin with. But even if more people became motivated, could they change a faulty system by using said system?

 

[Narz]

This is also true. Mostly the only people who have motivation in matters relating to this are the ones controlling the situation to begin with. But even if more people became motivated, could they change a faulty system by using said system?

Yes. People now have more communication & influence options than ever before but also far more monitoring than ever before. Back in the day people communicated with leaflets & thru couriers who's bring messages to town squares. But now that no one ever leaves their homes they have to depend on e-mail & facebook. Probably is, if revolution ever got serious to the point it threatened TPTB those avenues would be able to be blocked really easily.

Basically 99.999% of us except a few survivalist types are utterly dependent on our globalized economy. This is the tricky part about revolution. It's not just revolution against the US, the whole world is intertwined.

Our only hope is to get people in power who aren't selfish, timid, short-sighted, beholden cowards. People who actually care about our world & are willing to shake things up.

Voting for friggin' president won't do crap because all these scripted suckers only got to where they are by appeasing those in power. We need to change the whole structure around politics and business and law. And to do all that in a short amount of time... can't really think of any solutions besides revolution.

Problem also is, society is waaay more complicated than it's even been before so a revolutionary system can't be based on typical revolutionary simplification of how people & systems should work.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

It depends on how much I can loot and pillage, and will the rebels accept "volunteers" [mercenaries]

 

[Dreadnought]

Yes I would like to see a revolution and I have been advocating for one for years now. For those who say a revolution will bring only violence and chaos has not studied revolutions in history. Although more often than not revolutions have been violent, there are enough instances of peaceful revolution to say that it could be pulled off.

Your post is false.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

The time for the revolution is not yet. I would much prefer a simple fracture then a civil war, because that's what would happen, a civil war.

(Also the downward spiral is eighty years old not twenty.)

 

[zjintz]

Your post is false.

remember Ghandi?

 

[Cutlass]

The problem isn't the government per se. The problem is the corruption of the government by big money interests. Get rid of that and we have a decently functioning system again.

 

[warpus]

The problem isn't the government per se. The problem is the corruption of the government by big money interests. Get rid of that and we have a decently functioning system again.

Agreed. Take legalized bribery out of the system and the politicians will be forced to work for their constituents again, instead of for the people who bankroll them.

 

[Dachs]

remember Ghandi?

Not even remotely comparable circumstances.

It wasn't as though that was very "peaceful" either, and Gandhi probably helped to make it significantly less peaceful than it otherwise might have been.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The problem isn't the government per se. The problem is the corruption of the government by big money interests. Get rid of that and we have a decently functioning system again.

Hardly. It would have to be constantly defended from the people who want to undo it, for the most part by the people who want to undo it. A far better solution is to remove the very possibility of monied interests existing, and that is not something you simply ask for, either through the ballot box or by sitting in Zuccotti Park.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This thread can't be serious, because no one in their right mind would want a revolution. Do you want violence and chaos, a drop in the living standards of everyone, and a collapse of society?

No, of course not. But I don't want things to stay the way they are, either. If we have to suffer through interesting times in order to secure a more safe and secure future for our children or our children's' children, then so be it.

It's worth it to remember the words of one of our Founding Fathers, who I suppose also must have not been in their right mind in wanting a revolution:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams

If someone wants a revolution now, then they clearly haven't read up on revolutions in history, and their particularly grotesque and chaotic events associated with them.

If someone doesn't want a revolution now, then they clearly have not read up on present social-economic circumstances, and the particularly grotesque and oppressive actions associated with them. Or experienced them, for that matter, which is a far more brutal and thorough pedagogue than any textbook.

 

[zjintz]

Not even remotely comparable circumstances.

It wasn't as though that was very "peaceful" either, and Gandhi probably helped to make it significantly less peaceful than it otherwise might have been.

It seems we have different versions of history. what is your source?.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem isn't the government per se. The problem is the corruption of the government by big money interests. Get rid of that and we have a decently functioning system again.

Problem is, the majority doesn't really care about certain things that still can be crucial to the majority. Most people aren't teachers or businesspeople, yet their work is essential to the very majority who doesn't care to politically represent them. Lobbyism ensures that certain topics that would go undiscussed in unfettered majority rule do get discussed after all.

 

[Synobun]

The time for the revolution is not yet. I would much prefer a simple fracture then a civil war, because that's what would happen, a civil war.

(Also the downward spiral is eighty years old not twenty.)

I would prefer a revolution after 20 years than a revolution after 80. The damage will be astronomically worse after eighty years. All you have to do is look at the downward spiral America has been in for the twenty years I stated. Times that by four. That is a very bleak outlook, and it fits right in with my statement that the American people are laissez-faire ("Let it be", "Oh it's not that bad yet!", etc).

 

[JtheJackal]

I would prefer a revolution after 20 years than a revolution after 80. The damage will be astronomically worse after eighty years. All you have to do is look at the downward spiral America has been in for the twenty years I stated. Times that by four. That is a very bleak outlook, and it fits right in with my statement that the American people are laissez-faire ("Let it be", "Oh it's not that bad yet!", etc).

Maybe the American people are vaguely aware of the history of the country for the past 200+ years and noticed how things change and get worse than get better and gets worse and gets better, etc.

This topic is no different than someone saying its the end of the world because there were natural disaster for the past 20 years.